4:28 AM
51
Q: What is Stack Exchange's official stance on words such as "black list", "white list", "master", "slave", and so on?

ChrisI've just had one of my answers edited on Stack Overflow to swap out "black list" and "white list" for "deny list" and "allow list" respectively. There was no comment on the change, but I assume it to be due to those words being racially charged. I don't mind the change (except for the introduced...

 
Thanks for the link Rob. I think there is some overlap, but I don't want to debate the meaning or background of the words. I do think that discussion is important, it's just that I'm not personally equipped with the knowledge/context to contribute meaningfully to that conversation. Instead, I just would like to know which words I should/shouldn't use within StackOverflow so I can better contribute to the community.
 
Rob
Chris for an "official" answer, rather than anybody answering, you would want to tag your question "support"; unless your question is a duplicate of the currently clear and lengthily debated CoC policy already in effect. --- For example: 1. On a particular SE religious site people frequently think of new sexual questions to ask, and question if the actions conform with what is permitted. 2. On an SE language site people ask about swear words and body parts. --- We need to be careful to allow good questions and their text while being cautious about allowing anything to be posted.
 
Blacklist has nothing whatsoever to do with racism or people, so this is hypercorrection and completely inappropriate. See also: niggardly
 
@CodyGray finding offence in words is a social linguistic issue, not a purely linguistic (technical) issue. If enough people experience a term as offensive, then correction is appropriate. We may shake our heads and point out that it makes no sense etymologically, that won’t take away that offence is experienced.
 
@MartijnPieters wonder how many people would be enough to experience word "Martijn" as offensive. Or "gnat"
 
@gnat If you really want an answer to that: Martijn used to be an association for the promotion of social acceptance regards paedophile behaviour. Officially. Unofficially it was a bunch of pedos finding each other and doing unspeakable things. It's outlawed, but the name itself (in the right context) can actually be quite offensive to some people already.
 
I see. Any word may eventually become offensive to someboby. Where is this going to lead us
 
4:28 AM
To a world of hyperbole, where everybody immediately considers the world to end when something "I am used to" is going to change? That is the other side of this discussion.
 
I would prefer correcting the wrong-headed points of view, @Martijn. A footnote would do wonders. It simply isn't feasible to erase everything that might possibly be viewed by someone as offensive; we'd have nothing left.
 
@GhostCat There's two sides to it. On the one hand, some terms are derogatory and should be avoided. On the other hand, some terms are only "offensive" because it is fashionable to find things offensive and fight them. The question is which is which. Unfortunately answering that question is a hornet's nest...
 
I mostly hate that that change was made with the edit description "deleted 2 characters in body" rather than an actual explanation/conversation.
 
@CodyGray note that I’m not saying that this applies to “blacklist”, I don’t think it does (yet). But it does to other terms. You as individual can try and correct as much as you like, but you simply don’t scale. :-)